IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v34y2012i4p696-722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Muller, Nicholas Z.

Abstract

This paper develops a model of an optimal regulatory program for greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions that accommodates the benefits due to reductions of co-pollutants including: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Employing per ton damage estimates for the co-pollutants produced by an integrated assessment model, co-pollutant damage estimates per ton carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) are developed for over 10,000 sources of GHGs in the lower 48 states including both transportation sources and electric power generation. For coal-fired electric power generation, the co-pollutant damages are larger in magnitude than recent peer-reviewed estimates of the marginal damage for GHGs. The co-pollutant damage per ton CO2e varies considerably across source types and source location. The paper estimates the welfare gain from adopting a policy that encompasses the spatially variant co-pollutant damage to be between $1 million and $85 million annually. The range depends on the slope of the marginal abatement cost curve. The paper also shows that a distortionary aggregate emission cap reduces the advantage of differentiated policy. Provided an excessively strict cap, the spatially differentiated policy may reduce aggregate welfare. This result has important implications for GHG policy in the United States; although co-pollutant benefits of abating GHGs have been shown to be significant in magnitude, tailoring climate policy to reflect these source-specific co-benefits is not necessarily socially beneficial. This bolsters arguments for upstream policy designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Muller, Nicholas Z., 2012. "The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-722.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:696-722
    DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765512000450
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muller Nicholas & Tong Daniel & Mendelsohn Robert, 2009. "Regulating NOx and SO2 Emissions in Atlanta," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn & William Nordhaus, 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1649-1675, August.
    3. Joseph E. Aldy & W. Kip Viscusi, 2007. "Age Differences in the Value of Statistical Life: Revealed Preference Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 241-260, Summer.
    4. R. Scott Farrow & Martin T. Schultz & Pinar Celikkol & George L. Van Houtven, 2005. "Pollution Trading in Water Quality Limited Areas: Use of Benefits Assessment and Cost-Effective Trading Ratios," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    5. Tol, Richard S. J., 2008. "The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers and Catastrophes," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 2, pages 1-22.
    6. Hoel, Michael & Karp, Larry, 2001. "Taxes and quotas for a stock pollutant with multiplicative uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 91-114, October.
    7. Karp, Larry & Zhang, Jiangfeng, 2006. "Regulation with anticipated learning about environmental damages," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 259-279, May.
    8. Nordhaus, William, 1982. "How Fast Should We Graze the Global Commons?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 242-246, May.
    9. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, March.
    10. Muller Nicholas Z, 2011. "Linking Policy to Statistical Uncertainty in Air Pollution Damages," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-29, June.
    11. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 416-432, March.
    12. Martin L. Weitzman, 2009. "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Johannes Bollen & Bruno Guay & Stéphanie Jamet & Jan Corfee-Morlot, 2009. "Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: Literature Review and New Results," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 693, OECD Publishing.
    14. Pizer, William A., 2002. "Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 409-434, September.
    15. Fraas, Arthur G. & Richardson, Nathan, 2010. "Banking on Allowances: The EPA’s Mixed Record in Managing Emissions-Market Transitions," Discussion Papers dp-10-42.pdf, Resources For the Future.
    16. Nordhaus, William D., 1993. "Rolling the 'DICE': an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 27-50, March.
    17. Cao, Jing & Ho, Mun & Jorgenson, Dale, 2008. "“Co-benefits” of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in China: An Integrated Top-Down and Bottom-Up Modeling Analysis," Discussion Papers dp-08-10-efd, Resources For the Future.
    18. Art Fraas & Randall Lutter, 2012. "Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 602-607, February.
    19. Garbaccio, Richard F. & Ho, Mun S. & Jorgenson, Dale W., 1999. "Controlling carbon emissions in China," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 493-518, October.
    20. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn, 2009. "Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1714-1739, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stranlund, John K. & Son, Insung, 2015. "Prices versus Quantities versus Hybrids in the Presence of Co-pollutants," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205422, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Ian Parry & Chandara Veung & Dirk Heine, 2015. "How Much Carbon Pricing Is In Countries’ Own Interests? The Critical Role Of Co-Benefits," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 1-26, November.
    3. James Boyce & Manuel Pastor, 2013. "Clearing the air: incorporating air quality and environmental justice into climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 801-814, October.
    4. Crago, Christine L. & Stranlund, John K., 2015. "Optimal regulation of carbon and co-pollutants with spatially differentiated damages," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Chavez-Baeza, Carlos & Sheinbaum-Pardo, Claudia, 2014. "Sustainable passenger road transport scenarios to reduce fuel consumption, air pollutants and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 624-634.
    6. Krieger, Elena M. & Casey, Joan A. & Shonkoff, Seth B.C., 2016. "A framework for siting and dispatch of emerging energy resources to realize environmental and health benefits: Case study on peaker power plant displacement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 302-313.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:696-722. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.